I struggle a little with the issues debated between LCHF or the Newcastle diet method .
Looked at rationally if we need say 2200 calories to live on it will come from either our fat or food . Thus any diet with only 800 calories is actually high fat in terms of our bodies consumption . Any diet with only 800 calories will also be low carb just not quite so low carb as LCHF . The difference though isn't likely to be much more than 50 to 100 g carbs which still leaves it at the ' low level '
My own take on this would therefore be that metabolically both diets probably achieve much the same ends . High fat consumption in preference to carbs and Ketosis.
All indications here are that both diets have a similar effect in bringing down hba1c and both lead to weight loss if people can stick to them .
Evidence from here shows that both dietd result in an ability to eat more flexibly once sufficient weight has been lost . So both must trigger improved metabolism which isn't that surprising because of their similarities. The Nd diet might get to more weight faster because it is so extreme . The lchf diet might be easier to adopt long term as a way of eating. But in both instances some people will find it possible to stick to one or the other.
The one thing I truly don't get about all of this would be _ is there any actual benefit in terms of longer term health to adopting slightly more carbs I the starvation phase ?
I have seen comments that this leaves one more insulin sensitive .
Personally I'm not so sure .
I had a carb blow out yesterday . Three huge slices of toast . One after the other . Effect on blood sugars less than 2 mmol. This morning Ketosis still . That would suggest to me that LCHF leaves one similatly as cured as Nd.
I do think it's a great pity that Nd wasn't put forward as a low carb version , I'm guessing the results would have been at least as good as they currently are and this would have prevented the seeming ' rift ' and also given an easier path to weight maintenance thereafter.
May be someone will try a trial of that next as that does seem like the holy grail in terms of speed ; result doability and maintenance to me !
Some great points there, particularly the bit about the fact the body is actually using fat as fuel even on the very-low-fat rapid-weight-loss phase of the ND.
On my own personal journey so far, the actual contents of the diet has been largely unimportant. Weight loss by any means is getting me the best blood sugar results. I've tried losing weight, and maintaining weight, on both low carbs and 'standard' diets, and the results in terms of fasting glucose are almost identical. The results in terms of individual spikes after meals are of course a little different, but not remarkably so: when I "low carb" at around 40g a day, it takes less carbs to create large spikes, presumably because of the "last meal effect".
I suspect that when I can no longer afford to lose weight, the nature of the diet then starts to get far more important and I'll need to do further tests. It may be I'll find that the best diet is the one I can stick to in order to avoid regaining weight. Or it could be that, once out of weight loss mode, my metabolism is still so poor that I need to go VLCHF for safety. I guess I'll find out.
I share your suspicion about the lack of importance in carbs in the rapid weight loss phase. On the one hand people seem to think it may keep your pancreas ticking along, but on the other, might it be better to give it a rest for a few weeks while losing weight? All that may happen then is the first few carb loads get big spikes due to the 'last meal effect' but then things settle down, who knows?
I totally agree, the distinction between aims and diets is often so blurred one wonders what the debate is about exactly. People who eat LCHF often talk about trying to lose weight with the diet in the same way people using the ND, so the initial goal is often the same - i.e. people recognise that if they are overweight, losing it is a good idea. And saying that once "ideal" weight is achieved, it's easier to keep it that way on LCHF begs the question "easier than what? There's nothing about the ND approach that says the maintenance phase can't be LCHF".
For me the main distinction that I see is this:
ND = Care a lot about calories and attempting to improve metabolism in terms of both glucose tolerance and insulin resistance. Lose a ton of weight fast with severe calorie restriction, and hope your metabolism improves. If so, that opens up the things you can safely eat to include more carbs, but there's nothing to stop you adopting LCHF. Try to keep the weight off mainly by keeping an eye on calories.
LCHF = Don't care so much about calories or attempting to improve metabolism in terms of glucose tolerance, but maybe just insulin resistance. Likely to lose weight anyway if overweight. Don't care if your glucose tolerance improves, because you don't need it if your carbs are low enough anyway, but it's nice to think you no longer have insulin sloshing around your body.
